Spotted on the Moxie blog...

"The sustainability debate has been positioned all wrong - as an environmental problem, as something business needs to account for, a risk to be managed or a tax to be paid. The business community has been going along with this to an extent, but it doesn’t sit well. And now, in a volatile global economy and competitive environment, sustainability is being pushed aside as a luxury while business focuses on efficiencies, and the bolder ones look to innovate their way out of recession.

But it’s not an and/or situation. The answer is and/and. Sustainability 1.0 - compliance, CSR, reduction, limits, is over. Sustainability 2.0 is here. Sustainability 2.0 is an outcome-focused all encompassing approach. It’s a process that builds prosperous businesses creating innovative products and services; businesses founded on good financial results, responsible use of resources, and community well‐being."

Sustainability 2.0?  Sounds like an upgrade for virus prone Microsoft.  In computer language, they call this sort of thing a kludge.  Its a clunky, technical fix to get around something that wasn't right to begin with.  Everyone has a different understanding of "sustainability" anyway.  By only increasing the complexity of language with the "2.0", we only talk to our group that much more-- rather than branching out with language that the rest of the world can understand.

Isn't this whole thing about dreaming what we want the future to be, consciously designing a plan to achieve it, and taking practical steps to move the whole thing Forward?  I'm with the spirit of this, not to be overcritical, but in terms of conveying the meaning, sustainability isn't ringing enough bells to begin with, and adding 2.0 only makes it a bit more convoluted to any outsider.